Will Perez Hilton finally receive a little karmic justice?

Apparently Perez forgot Miley Cyrus is still a minor and thought it would be appropriate to post an up-skirt photo of her getting out of a car on his blog. He's since taken it down and posted a poorly conceived and flippant faux-pology in which he both denies having done it but contradictorily asking if we really think he's that stupid (well, yeah, I do). You can read more about it and see his apology without going to his site here.

I hope he's prosecuted and at the very least has to issue a sincere apology and pay a fine. Jail time would work for me too though. He's a nasty little vulture.

he is seriously dumb for doing that. he had to have known she was a minor. But why the hell is Miley trying to be Britney 2.0? zzzzzzzzzzz. I hope she goes away soon-she has nothing good to offer as an artist. The Lolita sex thing is played out and old.

Perez is very aware of Mileys age, he posts her age all the time when he blogs about her. Whether you think of it as child porn or not she is underage and he knew better. I hope he is prosecuted but I don't know who would be the one to press charges. I don't see Miley or her camp doing it.

What a douche. Now, I'm not a fan a Miley's by any stretch, she gets on my feckin' nerves. But this is really atrocious. Somebody tell this idiot she'll be 18 and fair game in a few months. So impatient....

And you might not even have to sneak the damn picture. She might give it to you!

And that's exactly what is making me . How totally arbitrary a distinction is that.

Click to expand...

From a legal standpoint, it's everything.

I don't want to see anybody taking pictures of anybody's panty-free crotch. I don't condone it. Unfortunately, skummy paparazzi are going to snap whatever they want, even when you're in an uncompromising position.

And let's face it, when Miley does turn 18, what little protection she had because of her age will be gone. She's going to be fodder for a lot of folks. Sad, but true.

Of course, some people are insisting she must have put them on after the first pic was taken, but since from what I read in Reuters, her crotch was pixilated in Perez's photo and no one could see anything anyway, so it's hardly pornographic, child or otherwise.

I don't like Miley Cyrus, but I despise Perez Hilton. Regardless of whether or not it's something that most would consider child pornography or the fact that she'll be an adult in a few short months, the law is black and white--there's no such thing as "almost," and I think that she would have a viable case against him. I hope that she sues the pants off of him.

Why is it "ok" just because the picture was proven to be a fake? He still posted it and A) didn't realize it was fake or B) knew it was fake but posted it anyway for attention. So either he caught a huge break by posting what turned out to be a fake pic or he is getting exactly what he wanted when he posted a fake picture but its just not the attention he thought he would get.

My view is that any upskirt pic is inappropriate but especially so with a minor regardless of the state of her underwear. It's a voyeuristic photo which by it's very nature sexualizes it's subject matter. I don't care if she's ALMOST 18. She's not yet and he was very much in the wrong. I'm not sure what makes it ok for a paparazzi to take and sell these photos and bloggers to publish them when other men are prosecuted for similar behavior using hidden cameras. Women should have some protection from photographers who go out of their way to get these upskirt photos. It's an invasion of privacy. I haven't seen this particular photo but I've read that many paparazzi will practically lay on the ground and/or hold their cameras on the end of a tripod with a remote trigger to try to shoot up the skirts of celebrities.

My view is that any upskirt pic is inappropriate but especially so with a minor regardless of the state of her underwear. It's a voyeuristic photo which by it's very nature sexualizes it's subject matter. I don't care if she's ALMOST 18. She's not yet and he was very much in the wrong. I'm not sure what makes it ok for a paparazzi to take and sell these photos and bloggers to publish them when other men are prosecuted for similar behavior using hidden cameras. Women should have some protection from photographers who go out of their way to get these upskirt photos. It's an invasion of privacy. I haven't seen this particular photo but I've read that many paparazzi will practically lay on the ground and/or hold their cameras on the end of a tripod with a remote trigger to try to shoot up the skirts of celebrities.

Click to expand...

Agree with all of it, but Perez was being accused of peddling child pornography.

Agree with all of it, but Perez was being accused of peddling child pornography.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on how liberally you define pornography. Is it simply subject matter presented in a manner meant to sexually stimulate or does it have to be EXPLICIT subject matter? I think upskirt photos by their nature are voyeuristic shots meant to sexually titillate, and Miley is still legally a child. The argument can probably be made.

I think it depends on how liberally you define pornography. Is it simply subject matter presented in a manner meant to sexually stimulate or does it have to be EXPLICIT subject matter? I think upskirt photos by their nature are voyeuristic shots meant to sexually titillate, and Miley is still legally a child. The argument can probably be made.

Click to expand...

Any argument can be made, but you would first have to make the case that the photo was posted in order to stimulate a sexual response. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the average person would find a pixilated blob sexually stimulating. It would certainly cause some problems for network television.

Perez did it to stimulate a response, but I don't think he meant it to be sexual. I think he meant it to get people all worked over the SCANDAL of it all. And it worked.

Is his intent really the determining factor? The photo is or is not appropriate regardless of his intent.

ETA: Just thought I should add that I think his intent was to post a photo that he knew would get a lot of hits, and he knew that an upskirt celebrity pic would do that because so many DO find it sexually titillating regardless of whether or not he did. Why else would these photos be more highly publicized and valued than the average bikini pic? They are not more revealing, but they are revealing in a voyeuristic way that violates the privacy of the subject and that many find sexually stimulating.